On 04/02/10 04:52, Michael Lachmann wrote:
> The seq that I use is /sw/bin/seq, which seems to have been installed
> by fish:
> ---
> #!/usr/bin/env fish
> #
> # Fallback implementation of the seq command
gee.
Are there, I wonder, any systems with Fish installed but not Bash (or at
least some bourne-compatible/posix shell as /bin/sh)?
Yes, I admit I do my scripting in Bash. Not perl, not python, not zsh,
not oh-er-there-must-be-another-scripting-language. Bash is everywhere,
bash is reliable ('cause everyone uses it, so everyone notices its
bugs), and you basically have to know bash if you're to accurately read
the advice and scripts that people give on the Internet*, let alone to
give advice. (*maybe you don't need to know the looping constructs,
history substitution, keyboard shortcuts.. -- but then again, maybe...)
> The error (fish: invalid option -- 1) seems to be generated before
> the script is ever called, by fish itself.
> So, when the script is invoked, fish is called, with the arguments (10
> -1 5), and it generates the error.
>
> I think when fish is invoked for a script, it shouldn't parse the
> arguments that are meant for the script...
Yes, that would be a Fish bug, providing that Fish wishes to support the
existence of Fish-scripts at all. (I guess we would be silly not to
technologically support it.. regardless of whether/which people say it's
a good idea for common use, it shouldn't be broken!)
-Isaac
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
